SA Court Orders Bashir Not to Leave...

[MOON Ki]

ICC is 1/3 africa; 1/3 europe;1/3 Asia; Now why haven't they tried crimes elsewhere.

Interesting question.    The answer is that* they are very busy with Africans cases sent there by Africans.     I am not aware of Europe or Asia sending their people to the court.   

* Apart from  UNSC referral and Kenyan case (in which GoK has claimed, explicitly and in writing, that it asked Ocampo to step in.)

ICC will remain imperial court until they get the balls to try crimes outside bush wars of Africa.

Without Africans sending Africans to the court, one wonders how much business it would have.    So much for fighting the "imperial tool".   I

I don't see that it has anything to do with "balls", but if there is a lack of "balls", surely it has to be in those who keep denouncing the "imperial tool", forever threatening "mass withdrawal", but never actually doing anything concrete.

[RV Pundit]

They have the power to self-invite themselves and find out why Tony Blair is still walking around when it obvious he committed ICC crimes. They also can investigate both side of Libya crisis for starters.

I am not aware of Europe or Asia sending their people to the court.   

[RV Pundit]

Those who thought it was a light issues. Sudan besieged 1,400 RSA peacekeepers and there was going to be war definitely.
http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2015/06/16/SA-soldiers-held-hostage-in-Sudan-as-guarantee-for-Al-Bashir%E2%80%99s-safe-return

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Those who thought it was a light issues. Sudan besieged 1,400 RSA peacekeepers and there was going to be war definitely.
http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2015/06/16/SA-soldiers-held-hostage-in-Sudan-as-guarantee-for-Al-Bashir%E2%80%99s-safe-return

That story was denied by SA.  I also don't see the logic if it were true.  Because attacking UN troops is the kind of excuse Uncle Sam would use to get directly involved.

[MOON Ki]

Those who thought it was a light issues. Sudan besieged 1,400 RSA peacekeepers and there was going to be war definitely.
http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2015/06/16/SA-soldiers-held-hostage-in-Sudan-as-guarantee-for-Al-Bashir%E2%80%99s-safe-return

That story was denied by SA.  I also don't see the logic if it were true.  Because attacking UN troops is the kind of excuse Uncle Sam would use to get directly involved.

The UN too appears to know nothing about this; that is surprising, given that the Secretary General has had  a few words to say on what happened in South Africa.     News sources in Sudan too do not seem to be aware of it.   

[RV Pundit]

So the Union chair is lying. Of course Gov of RSA, Sudan and concerned will deny for diplomacy given nothing happen. Bashir went back. Arresting PORK of another country is not a joke. Even US of A has not dared...except maybe baby doc father or something like that.

That story was denied by SA.  I also don't see the logic if it were true.  Because attacking UN troops is the kind of excuse Uncle Sam would use to get directly involved.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

So the Union chair is lying. Of course Gov of RSA, Sudan and concerned will deny for diplomacy given nothing happen. Bashir went back. Arresting PORK of another country is not a joke. Even US of A has not dared...except maybe baby doc father or something like that.

That story was denied by SA.  I also don't see the logic if it were true.  Because attacking UN troops is the kind of excuse Uncle Sam would use to get directly involved.

This event did not happen.  Bashir was probably assured all along Zuma would defy the court order the African way.  Why would Sudan risk creating conditions where SA could decide last minute to lock him up?  It doesn't add up.

[MOON Ki]

So the Union chair is lying. Of course Gov of RSA, Sudan and concerned will deny for diplomacy given nothing happen.

Yes, that's it.  A huge cover-up conspiracy.   So huge that the only place it can come from is a small South African source, with no corroboration from any other source.    So huge that even the UN, which has always had very strong words on interfering with folks on UN peace-keeping missions, prefers to keep quite about this one.   

The truth is out there.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

So the Union chair is lying. Of course Gov of RSA, Sudan and concerned will deny for diplomacy given nothing happen.

Yes, that's it.  A huge cover-up conspiracy.   So huge that the only place it can come from is a small South African source, with no corroboration from any other source.    So huge that even the UN, which has always had very strong words on interfering with folks on UN peace-keeping missions, prefers to keep quite about this one.   

The truth is out there.

The notion that UN would keep it under wraps to be diplomatic towards Bashir flies in the face of all logic.

[RV Pundit]

What would UN have said. Sudan did not violate any peacekeeping rules. They just made their presence known to the South Africans. UN peacekeepers in Sudan are there at mercy of Sudan Gov.UN is HQ of diplomacy if there was one. Bashir can kick out the UN peacekeepers any day as long as he has one veto from China or Russia. UN Commander job therefore is first and foremost kiss Bashir behind....so they can be allowed do their job...which is to protect civilians...with as less drama as possible.

The notion that UN would keep it under wraps to be diplomatic towards Bashir flies in the face of all logic.

[MOON Ki]

What would UN have said.

Go through the UN Security Council records and find what has been said in the past whenever there was even a hint of a threat to UN peace-keeping troops.

Sudan did not violate any peacekeeping rules. They just made their presence known to the South Africans.

Really?   That's it?   The first we here heard of this was from one Pundit, who excitedly informed us that:

Sudan besieged 1,400 RSA peacekeepers and there was going to be war definitely.

But this doesn't seem to have even raised an eyebrow at the UN?

Bashir can kick out the UN peacekeepers any day as long as he has one veto from China or Russia.

Huh? Russia was one of the countries that voted to refer the Sudan/Bashir case to the ICC, and it had very strong words about punishing those responsible for the situation in Darfur.   China abstained in that vote.

[MOON Ki]

This story seems to be known only to an obscure website; everyone else is lying and involved in huge cover-up.    The UN has now categorically stated that it did not happen, but Pundit will no doubt be able to tell us why they are lying.

Also, according to Pundit's source---the only one bold enough to tell the truth:

the Sudanese troops held about 1400 South African soldiers

That number of 1400 is interesting.   It seems to be quite different from the number of South African soldiers that the UN is aware of:

"South Africa currently has 802 members of an infantry battalion deployed in Kutum, Malha and Mellit team sites in North Darfur. We can confirm that the mission's South African troops were not held hostage or under any threat as reported in the media," U.N. spokesman Farhan Haq said in a statement.

http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFKBN0OX0MC20150617